Wang Pengfei v. Schedule A Defendants: Three-Patent Wrapping Cutter Dispute Voluntarily Dismissed
Plaintiff Wang Pengfei asserted three patents — two utility and one design — covering a wrapping paper cutting tool against a group of anonymous online marketplace sellers in the Northern District of Illinois. The case closed in 110 days via voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1), with no merits ruling and each side bearing its own costs.
A three-patent wrapping cutter enforcement action ends before any merits ruling
On 7 November 2024, Wang Pengfei filed a patent infringement complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, asserting three patents — US12091276B1, USD0985353S, and US12090678B1 — all directed at a wrapping paper cutting tool. The defendants were not individually named at filing; instead they were identified collectively as ‘Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations on Schedule A,’ a procedural device commonly used in e-commerce brand enforcement actions targeting multiple online sellers simultaneously.
The action closed on 25 February 2025 when Wang Pengfei filed a notice of voluntary dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1). The verdict text specifies that each party is responsible for its own costs and attorneys’ fees, suggesting the parties did not reach a formal settlement agreement that would have shifted fees. Critically, the dismissal notice does not state whether it is with or without prejudice, and the public docket is silent on this point.
The 110-day duration — from filing to closure — is notably brief and consistent with the pattern seen in Schedule A enforcement campaigns, where plaintiffs sometimes secure early settlements, default judgments, or TROs before withdrawing remaining claims. What drove the specific decision to voluntarily dismiss here — whether due to settlement with individual defendants, a failed TRO application, or a strategic recalibration — cannot be determined from the public record alone.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 110 days
110 days — resolved faster than the N.D. Illinois median for patent infringement cases
Voluntarily dismissed: what the Rule 41(a)(1) exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1) permits dismissal as of right — but silence on prejudice matters
Under FRCP 41(a)(1), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the opposing party serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. This is a unilateral right. The verdict text here does not specify ‘with prejudice’ or ‘without prejudice.’ Courts have historically treated 41(a)(1) dismissals as without prejudice by default unless the notice expressly states otherwise, but practitioners should verify the actual filing.
No merits adjudicationWith or without prejudice? The public record does not say
A dismissal ‘with prejudice’ would bar Wang Pengfei from refiling on the same claims — effectively ending enforcement of these patents against these defendants. A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ preserves the right to refile, keeping litigation risk alive for Schedule A sellers. The verdict text here does not resolve this distinction, and the public record is silent. Anyone monitoring exposure to these patents should treat this ambiguity as an open risk factor until the actual notice is reviewed.
Prejudice status unconfirmedSchedule A defendants face no judgment — but may still be at risk
The anonymous seller defendants obtained no formal merits ruling in their favour. If the dismissal is without prejudice, they could face re-assertion of the same three patents. Each defendant bears its own legal costs, which in a Schedule A action may be minimal if they never formally appeared. The lack of any fee award or invalidity finding means the asserted patents remain unchallenged on the merits and carry full presumptive validity.
No invalidity ruling securedThree wrapping cutter patents survive unchallenged — enforcement risk persists
All three patents — two utility (US12091276B1, US12090678B1) and one design (USD0985353S) — emerge from this litigation with no adverse validity or infringement finding. For sellers of wrapping paper cutting tools on Amazon, Etsy, or similar platforms, this case is consistent with a broader enforcement strategy that may continue. The cost-neutral dismissal and intact patent portfolio suggest Wang Pengfei retains full optionality to refile or target new defendants.
Patents remain valid and enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Wang Pengfei | Individual | Consumer products patent holder — inventor asserting US12091276B1, USD0985353S, US12090678B1Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Partnerships and Unincorporated Associations Identified on Schedule A | Individual | Anonymous online marketplace sellers identified collectively on Schedule ASearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew L. De Preter | Attorney | Counsel for Wang PengfeiSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Sofia Quezada Hastings | Attorney | Counsel for Wang PengfeiSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Aronberg, Goldgehn, Davis & Garmisa | Law Firm | Representing Wang PengfeiSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Georgia N Alexakis | Judge | Illinois Northern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1) and specifies a cost-neutral resolution, but does not expressly state ‘with prejudice’ or ‘without prejudice.’ Under Rule 41(a)(1)(B), a voluntary dismissal is without prejudice unless otherwise stated — however, practitioners should review the actual filed notice to confirm. The absence of any merits disposition means the three asserted patents carry full presumptive validity. No claim construction, invalidity finding, or non-infringement determination was issued, leaving the substantive questions entirely open.
US12091276B1, USD0985353S & US12090678B1 — Wrapping Paper Cutting Tool Patents
The three asserted patents all relate to a wrapping paper cutting tool — a consumer product used for cleanly cutting gift wrap. US12091276B1 and US12090678B1 are utility patents filed on application numbers US18/520088 and US18/539909 respectively, suggesting they were filed in close succession and likely cover complementary functional aspects of the same product. USD0985353S is a design patent (application US29/883671) covering the ornamental appearance of the device. The ‘B1’ designation on both utility patents indicates they were granted without any prior publication, which is consistent with recently filed and quickly examined applications.
The combination of two utility patents and one design patent on a single consumer tool product is a deliberate enforcement architecture. Utility patents protect the functional innovation — how the cutter works — while the design patent protects the visual appearance, making design-arounds considerably harder. For competitors in the gift wrap accessories market, particularly those selling on Amazon, AliExpress, or Etsy, all three patents must be individually assessed. The fact that these patents are recently granted and have not been invalidated in any IPR or litigation proceeding means they carry strong presumptive validity.
Should you run an FTO against US12091276B1, USD0985353S and US12090678B1?
Any company — or individual seller — manufacturing, importing, or selling wrapping paper cutting tools in the U.S. market should treat these three patents as active enforcement risks. The plaintiff’s use of a Schedule A complaint structure indicates a willingness to pursue multiple defendants simultaneously, and the voluntary dismissal here did not result in any adverse ruling that would limit future enforcement. R&D and product teams launching or continuing to sell in this category should commission FTO analysis covering all three patent numbers before market entry or continued sale.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US12091276B1, USD0985353S, and US12090678B1 against your product specifications in minutes, flagging overlapping claims and identifying prior art that could support an invalidity argument if needed. For Schedule A enforcement targets — where time between complaint filing and TRO application can be days — having a pre-built FTO and claim chart on file provides a critical head start for any response strategy.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US12091276B1 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Schedule A patent enforcement cases in N.D. Illinois — consumer tools
Browse comparable Schedule A patent infringement actions filed in the Northern District of Illinois asserting consumer product utility and design patents against anonymous online sellers.
What this case signals for the consumer tools IP enforcement landscape
Schedule A enforcement campaigns in N.D. Illinois are a high-volume tactic — this case’s rapid closure contains several signals worth unpacking.
Schedule A filings are designed for speed — 110 days to close is on pattern
N.D. Illinois is a preferred venue for Schedule A e-commerce enforcement because its procedures allow TROs and asset freezes against anonymous online defendants. A closure in under four months — before defendants even formally appeared — is consistent with early settlement by some defendants or a plaintiff decision to preserve resources. Companies operating in the wrapping paper and gift tool category should monitor this docket for refiled actions.
Two utility patents plus one design patent signals layered enforcement strategy
Asserting both utility patents (US12091276B1 and US12090678B1) and a design patent (USD0985353S) simultaneously raises the litigation cost barrier for defendants and broadens claim coverage. Design patents in particular are difficult to design around for products where appearance is functional. Competitors and sellers in this space should assess FTO exposure across all three patent numbers independently before launching similar products.
Pengfei v Partnerships — key questions answered
The public verdict text does not specify. The Rule 41(a)(1) notice states voluntary dismissal with each party bearing its own costs but does not include the words ‘with prejudice’ or ‘without prejudice.’ Under Rule 41(a)(1)(B), a first voluntary dismissal is presumed without prejudice absent express language to the contrary, but the actual filed notice should be reviewed to confirm.
Wang Pengfei asserted three patents: US12091276B1 (utility, application US18/520088), US12090678B1 (utility, application US18/539909), and USD0985353S (design patent, application US29/883671). All three relate to a wrapping paper cutting tool. The utility patents carry a ‘B1’ grant designation, indicating issuance without prior publication.
A ‘Schedule A’ defendant structure allows plaintiffs to file a single complaint against numerous anonymous online sellers without naming them individually at filing. The actual defendants are listed in an attached schedule. This approach is common in N.D. Illinois e-commerce IP enforcement and allows plaintiffs to pursue TROs and asset freezes against multiple marketplace sellers simultaneously and efficiently.
Wang Pengfei was represented by attorneys Matthew L. De Preter and Sofia Quezada Hastings of Aronberg, Goldgehn, Davis & Garmisa, a Chicago-based law firm with a documented practice in N.D. Illinois Schedule A IP enforcement actions. No counsel of record was listed for the defendant group.
No. A voluntary dismissal under Rule 41(a)(1) carries no merits determination. No claim construction, invalidity ruling, or non-infringement finding was issued. All three patents — US12091276B1, USD0985353S, and US12090678B1 — emerge from this litigation with full presumptive validity intact and remain potentially enforceable against other parties.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.